Monday, August 30, 2010

How Soccer Explains Islam's Hope?

The intensive class discussion shed light on the globalization aspect of soccer and the intricacies involved in making the game a dynamic and evolving game. In the book Foer presents many claims on the nature of the game in its respective areas ( Serbia, Scotland, US etc. ).

His claim that seems most problematic to me is the one made on the Muslim world. Beginning on page 222 he presents his central thesis on the Muslim world stating that the only viable political solution in the Middle East is secular nationalism.

Well what’s wrong with secular nationalism? After all it is a notion that is predicated on the separation of church/mosque and state. However, Foer himself points out that secular nationalism in the Middle East was embodied by dictators like “Gamal Nasser, Muammer Qaddafi, and Hafez Asad.”

Foer explains that a future political resolution is between secular nationalist and “Islamists.” The advantage according to Foer in dictatorships prevailing in the Middle East is, “No doubt, the old dictators have caused many headaches, but America basically knew how to deal with them.”

Basically dictatorships are manageable. Reminds me of FDR’s famous quote on supporting the Nicaraguan dictator, Somoza.

“He [Somoza] may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch.”

So don’t mind the countless crimes against humanity, human rights offenses, killings, purges etc. As long as pliable secular nationalists can deliver oil and participate in the global politico-economic global order, than the U.S. has ample reason to support such leaders and governments.

On page 223 Foer makes another weak claim on how globalization hasn’t worked in the Muslim world because it exposes the lack of modernity in the area.

“In Pakistan, a proliferation of KFC and Bollywood has arguably aggravated the problem.”

Apparently we can’t rely on Col. Sanders and Sharukh Khan to do the job because they are ambassadors of a western way of life that is too modern.

Foer doesn’t mention how as KFC and other multi-nationals proliferated in Pakistan, we were supporting a military dictator in that of General Musharraf. Foer also fails to mention how over 30 years of military rule in Pakistan was legitimized by U.S. support.

So can you really expect the Muslim world to respond favorably?

He further explains that democracy in the Middle East is a dead- end because of a lack of internal support. Foer however, never considers the sentiments of the people in the Middle East in his analysis. Unlike other parts of the world, the people of the Middle East and the Muslim World are incapable of harboring ambitions to rule themselves free of tyranny. At least according to Foer.

Yet his whole argument favoring tyranny hinges on the “football revolution” in Iran and the disgust of some parts of the population against the current theocratic state.

Foers’ understanding of Iran is possibly at best illuminated by an interview of an Iranian living in Los Angeles.

Foer fails to evaluate the finer aspects of resistance against the theocratic government. When young people-most of them who were never there to witness the brutality of the Shah- chant praises in support of the Shah, the chants are more an expression of dissent because the Shah represented everything the Mullah’s tried to overcome. These phrases were aimed at humiliating the Mullahs, not an intention to usher in un-democratic and repressive rule by the Shah.

According to Foer this is how soccer explains Islam’s hope- tyranny and repression. This might also coincide with hopes of Shell and Exxon-Mobil and the many tyrants across the political landscape of the Muslim world.


No comments:

Post a Comment